Re: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless
Jon Dowland dixit:
>On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>> If some kind of sync is required by the application, I think this is
>> because the application want to ensure the data are really written to
>> the disk so that their state remains coherent even in case of crash.
>> If the application is ok to have this kind of data written to
>> tmpfs (ie in memory), I do not see the interest of using sync at
>> first. Can someone shows me a valid use case of sync on tmpfs?
>
>I'd agree with your analysis, it's buggy for them to aggressively sync for writes
>to /tmp.
No. An application might not know it’s writing to tmpfs (for
example, if it wasn’t even written for an operating system
with tmpfs in the first place). And it might want to use sync
writes. The user of such application might want to tell it to
write into a mounted tmpfs, for speed, if they don’t care about
data loss – and since sync is nop on tmpfs, this is A Good Thing.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
<dileks> ch: good, you corrected yourself. ppl tend to tweet such news
immediately, sth. like "grml devs seem to be buyable" <ch> dileks: we
_are_. if you throw enough money in our direction, things will happen
<mika> everyone is buyable, it's just a matter of price <mrud> and now
comes [mira] and uses this as a signature ;0 -- they asked for it…
Reply to: